Forum rules

- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.

I can't speak for every guild out there, but from many specials I have seen so far the pattern is common. You setup a trigger and more or less forget about it. Useful as they all are, that's a bit shallow when it's pretty much the entirety of your layman benefits.

Then, there's spells. Healing, resting, chatroom, whatnot. I wouldn't really know. They are tools you can use that can maybe even incite decision. They can just provide with buffs as well, the bottom line is it's cool to be casting spells, especially if you have many new options for your character which happen to be either strong or QoL improvements. I believe the problem does not lie with the spellcasting layman, but with the lack of flavour/expansion of the non-spellcasting ones.

Crazy idea: Unrestrict the shieldbearers racially, merge them with Thornlin and give this new layman a "goodie army/pact" theme. Merge the skills, put more than one special in there (and lower the effectiveness of course, or make them mutually exclusive in usage) so there's some variety (or even decisions!?!), call AoB to the party and laugh maniacally.

- BoK needs work. It's too easy to forget you're a member of the guild. Work on their special to make it... special, or give them a reason to be a group/guild instead of just sword connoisseurs running around and maybe <bflip> on a good day.

- Haven't been a Minstrel to judge, they have their spells though they should be fine. Same for Heralds, Worshipers.

- I have the notions that Archers are somehow broken, like not having a special. Still, they would be a BoK for bows and there would be similar issues. And, bows.

- Monks, last time I heard about it, had a layman part which gave only the skill training. Not being an occ monk, the training makes sense only if you are a merc and adapt but still, just be a monk instead of all that.

If either of the layman guilds comes close to matching the benefits of the current top layman dog, without being beholden to any personalities, then this will be a win for the game overall.

I have been hearing this sort of commentary a lot more recently. The planned opening of a few more layman guilds will provide more choice for players, which will be good. However the degree a layman guild beholdens an occupational guild should be reasonable... and if a player isn't happy with council 'personalities' there should be alternative layman options which provide roughly scaleable abilities.

What I am hearing is players don't believe this is the case, to the point that other guild councils are influenced to the detriment of their occupational guild membership to maintain their position in the layman guild... and it is not for any roleplay reason, it is because the layman guild is 'top dog' by a considerable margin. That the other layman guilds aren't really competitive options at all.

The Worshippers meet the balance guidelines set for layman magic guilds. Yet their top dog status does seem to have detrimental impact on layman choice and the broader global player experience. At least that is the perception I am getting.

So I throw it out to you all, am I reading the situation correctly? And if so to what extent? Is this likely to be resolved by more layman options? Or is there a feeling that layman magic guilds are too powerful?

to take things step-by-step:

Arman wrote:

However the degree a layman guild beholdens an occupational guild should be reasonable... and if a player isn't happy with council 'personalities' there should be alternative layman options which provide roughly scaleable abilities.

The primary question here is whether a layman guild should ever be in a position to dictate anything at all for any given player with an occupational affiliation. So far, the answer that Genesis gives is a firm "yes" - "EW" (elemental warriors?) are able to dictate to their members what occupational, racial or club guilds those members are allowed to be part of. To affirmate further control, players have been expelled from EW and have been forbidden by this layman guild to team with on the grounds that they said that they would like to kill the guild leader of EW (H).

To reiterate - saying that you would like to kill (H) is grounds enough to be expelled/banned from this layman club.

Arman wrote:

What I am hearing is players don't believe this is the case, to the point that other guild councils are influenced to the detriment of their occupational guild membership to maintain their position in the layman guild... and it is not for any roleplay reason, it is because the layman guild is 'top dog' by a considerable margin. That the other layman guilds aren't really competitive options at all.

EW may not be the most transparent guild, but they do ban Red Fang and Thanar members, as those "hating other races" yet allow knights of solamnia members despite those hating races. The question is where does one draw the line between an occupational guild voice and a an EW guild councilmember.

Arman wrote:

The Worshippers meet the balance guidelines set for layman magic guilds. Yet their top dog status does seem to have detrimental impact on layman choice and the broader global player experience. At least that is the perception I am getting.

So I throw it out to you all, am I reading the situation correctly? And if so to what extent? Is this likely to be resolved by more layman options? Or is there a feeling that layman magic guilds are too powerful?

Give Genesis an option exactly equal to the worshipers sans the people in charge/deciding on who gets in and who does not - into a layman guild.

Let's open Genesis elite grind to people who aren't just friends of EW?

The primary question here is whether a layman guild should ever be in a position to dictate anything at all for any given player with an occupational affiliation. So far, the answer that Genesis gives is a firm "yes" - "EW" (elemental warriors?) are able to dictate to their members what occupational, racial or club guilds those members are allowed to be part of. To affirmate further control, players have been expelled from EW and have been forbidden by this layman guild to team with on the grounds that they said that they would like to kill the guild leader of EW (H).

To reiterate - saying that you would like to kill (H) is grounds enough to be expelled/banned from this layman club.

Lets analyse this untrue comment. We can start with the fact that you only use the one that was kickeds facts. He did other things too, which apperently doesnt matter at all to you. Dont make this into a flame war.

Q:Krul is a templar. Krul wants to kill Diri, the high priest of Takhisis. Shall he be kicked from Templars? A: Yes.

Q:Krul is an layman AA, attacks the captain. Shall he be kicked from AA.A:Yes.

Q:Krul is a layman DO. He goes on a playerfight rampage. Should DO rules of not initiating attacks apply and he be kicked?A:Yes

Do you disagree with any of the above?Those are my opinions

Zugzug wrote:

EW may not be the most transparent guild, but they do ban Red Fang and Thanar members, as those "hating other races" yet allow knights of solamnia members despite those hating races. The question is where does one draw the line between an occupational guild voice and a an EW guild councilmember.

Yes. And who gets told why and how.

Zugzug wrote:

Give Genesis an option exactly equal to the worshipers sans the people in charge/deciding on who gets in and who does not - into a layman guild.

Let's open Genesis elite grind to people who aren't just friends of EW?

Which is what arman said about new guilds coming. Before christmas.

Personally, im not a fan of just making more open guilds without any requirements at all. I like a guild with rules, settings and a feeling to get drawn into.

The layman EW like many new guilds are coded to give the maximum allowed combat effectiveness allowed no matter what combination of abilities are used.The guild also provides no skills or spells which are not directly beneficial.So if you're a member just spam one of the abilities and you'll do well!

This together with a flaw in the tax calculation (basically higher combat aid is always better no matter what the tax is) means that it's likely we'll never have a better layman guild.

This together with a flaw in the tax calculation (basically higher combat aid is always better no matter what the tax is) means that it's likely we'll never have a better layman guild.

Depends on your goal.

Alisa has grown more in less than a year as knigth/calian, than she did in 1½ years as ogre. And i do feel i played more during the time as ogre.

As knight or calian she couldnt kill as big foes as an ogre at first, but growth caused her to become able to fight same size of opponents.

Had i changed her from EW to blademaster or militia... Her growth rate could have been further enhanced. Thats what i believe from talking proc rates from other knights or calians.

I feel your statement about tax/Caid is only true in comparison with your current power level. Not the long term options.If you want to grow big, what use is it that you can kill dark elves but progress slower than the gladiator killing gont guards?Or that you can kill gont guards twice as fast, but gain less than half the experince.

For gearhunting its very true. CAID pwns tax. Because thats one foe at a time.

The Worshippers meet the balance guidelines set for layman magic guilds. Yet their top dog status does seem to have detrimental impact on layman choice and the broader global player experience. At least that is the perception I am getting.

So I throw it out to you all, am I reading the situation correctly? And if so to what extent? Is this likely to be resolved by more layman options? Or is there a feeling that layman magic guilds are too powerful?

The question i am reading is this:

Is the power of a guild more important than roleplaying a guild?orAre layman guild to only back up an OCC guild?

Both questions get the answer no from me.

This makes me laugh.You are in fact a Council Member of THE most powerful layman guild in Genesis, and you question if the power is more important?I'll tell you one thing.When it's that huge a gap as it is now, DAMN straight it is.

_________________The views posted by me on this forum is not the views of the character Amberlee in-game.If you ask for my opinion here, you will get MY opinion, not that of my character.

However, if a guild, lets say the shadow union for instance have a huge benefit from a certain stat, and a guild can greatly add that stat, you gain a ton more than you would ever do from blademasters.

The layman EW like many new guilds are coded to give the maximum allowed combat effectiveness allowed no matter what combination of abilities are used.The guild also provides no skills or spells which are not directly beneficial.So if you're a member just spam one of the abilities and you'll do well!

This together with a flaw in the tax calculation (basically higher combat aid is always better no matter what the tax is) means that it's likely we'll never have a better layman guild.

Wow. Just wow.

We all know it, of course (that EW is insanely, really, truly, the "best" option in terms of a powerplayer build) - and that it's "for friends only". It's nice to see wizards admitting it though openly like this.

The primary question here is whether a layman guild should ever be in a position to dictate anything at all for any given player with an occupational affiliation. So far, the answer that Genesis gives is a firm "yes" - "EW" (elemental warriors?) are able to dictate to their members what occupational, racial or club guilds those members are allowed to be part of. To affirmate further control, players have been expelled from EW and have been forbidden by this layman guild to team with on the grounds that they said that they would like to kill the guild leader of EW (H).

To reiterate - saying that you would like to kill (H) is grounds enough to be expelled/banned from this layman club.

Lets analyse this untrue comment. We can start with the fact that you only use the one that was kickeds facts. He did other things too, which apperently doesnt matter at all to you. Dont make this into a flame war.

Q:Krul is a templar. Krul wants to kill Diri, the high priest of Takhisis. Shall he be kicked from Templars? A: Yes.

Q:Krul is an layman AA, attacks the captain. Shall he be kicked from AA.A:Yes.

Q:Krul is a layman DO. He goes on a playerfight rampage. Should DO rules of not initiating attacks apply and he be kicked?A:Yes

Do you disagree with any of the above?Those are my opinions

Zugzug wrote:

EW may not be the most transparent guild, but they do ban Red Fang and Thanar members, as those "hating other races" yet allow knights of solamnia members despite those hating races. The question is where does one draw the line between an occupational guild voice and a an EW guild councilmember.

Yes. And who gets told why and how.

Zugzug wrote:

Give Genesis an option exactly equal to the worshipers sans the people in charge/deciding on who gets in and who does not - into a layman guild.

Let's open Genesis elite grind to people who aren't just friends of EW?

Which is what arman said about new guilds coming. Before christmas.

Personally, im not a fan of just making more open guilds without any requirements at all. I like a guild with rules, settings and a feeling to get drawn into.

If Diri started to tell Zugzug whom he can and cannot team with, that conversation would end very quickly. Fortunately for Zugzug, he values his OCC guild much more than his layman (and so it should be, really), however his layman choice (Templars) cannot really be called an imbalanced guild. After all, think about how long an imbalanced evil-only guild would survive without nerfs in Genesis ;)

I feel it would be great for the game in general, if evil players (fighters) were given any other choice than be a goblin/grind for size to "matter". We are usually just an afterthought in genesis, and I have learned to simply accept that fact.

As far your preference (highlighted above in bold) - I agree (as I stated above) - let's petition for an evil-only layman guild that would surpass some occupational guilds in power, and have a nice setting/theme/feeling to get drawn into. Or do you only believe those things when they are on "your side"?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum